Comments
-
@smantuckit, Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will." Wives are to be sexually available to their husbands in all ways at all times. They serve their husbands at his command. This verse is believed to refer to anal sex (see Bukhari 60:51), and was "revealed" when women complained to Muhammad about the practice. The phrase "when and how you will" means that they lost their case... yeah. Wives seem to have no say on how sex is performed or when it is performed.
-
@tylersmileyface, Rape of Muslim women is against Islamic law - although the rape of non-Muslim women is not, if they are 'captured in battle' or bought as slaves. Even the rape of a Muslim woman is almost impossible to prove under strict Islamic law (Sharia). If the man claims that the act was consensual sex, there is very little that the woman can do to refute this. Islam places the burden of avoiding sexual encounters of any sort on the woman.
-
@tylersmileyface, However, it is not permissible to accuse the father of rape without evidence. Indeed, the Sharee’ah put some special conditions for proving Zina (fornication or adultery) that are not required in case of other crimes. The crime of Zina is not confirmed except if the fornicator admits it, or with the testimony of four trustworthy men, while the testimony of women is not accepted.
-
@tylersmileyface, Hence, the statement of this girl or the statement of her mother in itself does not Islamically prove anything against the father, especially that the latter denies it. Therefore, if this daughter has no evidence to prove that her accusations are true, she should not have claimed that she was raped by her father and she should not have taken him to the court. (IslamWeb.net, Image) Since it is incredibly unlikely that a child molester will violate his victim in front of "four trustworthy men", Islamic law amounts to a free pass for sexual predators.
-
@tylersmileyface, His statement was that we are importing rapists by the thousands. Even if domestic sexual abuse is prevalent in Islamic societies, your argument still provides no evidence that supports calling the majority of Muslim refugees rapists or that thousands of them are rapists. Sidetracking a bit, all of the main talking points of Swordsman's side include contradictions. They often point to Sweden as evidence that Muslims cause mass rapes. But then you come in and provide evidence intended to show that Muslims rape domestically without the assault ever being recorded. This is contradictory. How are they the cause for increasing rape statistics in Sweden if they are raping within the household without it ever going to court? How would importing "that culture" threaten us? These contradictions are often the reason why guys like Swordsman change their argument to appear reasonable. Notice how he went from "thousands are rapists" to "they are prone to rape." BIG difference.
-
@Blue Shirted Guy, okay. Yeah. I get that. I just wanted to show that he is correct about them being raised in a society that allows for rape (including child rape) because of their ridiculous laws that exclude women and modern science. However, you can not deny that there are many connections to immigrants and rape. However the rape definition is a very wide scale in places such as Sweden. I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, but, they do allow for rape in their country by their law and assuming they like to follow their law you can't really expect them to have a very strong desire to follow someone else's law.
-
@tylersmileyface, I'm in no way defending the laws of many Muslim majority countries. But the idea that the majority of individuals leave there without adapting to new laws is just absurd. We have thousands of Muslim refugees coming in every year. People seem to forget that, often viewing the issue as a future, "just in case" scenario. I cannot deny there is a correlation between immigrants and rape, much like I cannot deny there is a correlation between drinking water and dying. However, I can whole-heartedly deny causation. I went through it once with a respectful commenter on here. I believe that even when I doubled the rape count in Sweden (he claimed they fudged the numbers) and accused Muslim refugees for every single rape, 95+% of them weren't doing any raping. Plus, most of the refugees are women, children, and elders.
-
@tylersmileyface, yes. I understand the concern, because there's never a 0% chance of that happening. I think the moral issue with refugees is actively adding that risk to our country. If a suicide bomber gets in, he would kill people that wouldn't have died otherwise. That's why I understand people's fears. However, I believe that risk to be *extremely* small, given the intense screening. Objectively, I see the 2 sides as this: 1) Let them in with intense screening. Upside: Actively improve the lives of thousands trying to escape turmoil, who are at a much greater risk of death. Downside: Add an extremely small risk of someone getting in that kills people who wouldn't have died otherwise. 2) Don't let them in Upside: Keeps out any risk of Americans dying by a terrorist refugee. 0% chance now it will happen. Downside: Actively send thousands of scared, struggling humans to worse lives and a more likely death than an American's if we let refugees in. Continued... give me a sec
-
@tylersmileyface, this is why I don't judge people for not wanting refugees coming. It actively adds the risk. It's a very tough, moral argument. Personally, I think bringing in refugees (with intense screening) is worth it, because it actively and definitively improves lives. The other side does not actively improve lives, it just erases that small chance of catastrophe. We all have that small chance of catastrophe in our lives every day, and we don't let it stop us. If adding a small-ass fraction more of a risk helps save people, then I think it's worth it, even if something bad were to happen. All that being said, what I disrespect is when people on either side add falsehoods or rhetoric to convince people. Saying there's a 0% chance of something bad happening, or that we are importing thousands of rapists, is just wrong and has no place in an already tough debate. I think the moral side of it becomes easier for people like Swordsman if they think Muslims are bad people.
-
@RustyFapwagon, You're looking at 22% below the poverty line vs. 11%. And the whole "nanny state" criticism is so vague and played out. As a rebuttal, New Hampshire leans left and has been ranked the freest state in the nation (in a study of personal liberties by The Mercatus Center at George Mason University), compared to the Bible Belt, that has regulated that certain stores (liquor) aren't allowed to open on sundays or before 10, or after midnight, as well as other pointless "morality" laws that do little besides set a public policy against outgroups. Perfect example, unless you believe in a god, Mississippi bars you from ANY government position. Also, if you win an out of state lottery as a resident, Mississippi can garnish the winnings if the amount is high enough. Does that qualify as a "nanny state?"
So you're calling out a person for not wanting to put up with your vulgarity?